What makes us human?

[Pinkamena]

It's philosophy time, bitches.

I've been thinking about this question lately, about what makes a human "human", and how far we would have to go to make a human no longer be perceived as one.

If we cut of the arms and legs of a person, everybody would still agree it's a human.
If we cut off the torso and kept the head alive, it would still be a human, yes?
What if we extracted the brain and put it in a jar, able to communicate over some sort of brain-computer interface? Would we still think that's a human, and if not, why? Does a brain need a head to be human? That would imply our head, and not the brain, is the core of our humanity, which is a bit silly.

I guess as a quick and easy question to get the thread started is "would you perceive a robot with the brain (and consciousness) of a human to be human, or a robot?"

 

[Evonisia]

Well in case this hasn't moved yet and the internet doesn't eat my reply: I would say yes, he is still "human". I think the public reaction to it would be somewhat mixed because he doesn't have the same flaws as us normal humans do, but he still thinks, feels and *insert other mental thing here* like he used to, though he might have PTSD or something over being put in a robot suit.

 

[Guffe]

Well we're not xenomorphs are we?
That's pretty much it, not bird, not ant, not elephant, not whale, not fish, not octopus etc = human
Don't overthink it lad, have a drink

 

[Euryalus]

Whenever this topic comes up, I like to just go with the Greek philosopher's description of "a featherless biped."

Why? Because if it catches on, then I can go to a Halloween party as Diogenes carrying a plucked chicken and people will get it! ... Maybe...

 

[Someone Depressing]

Don't discriminate against brains in jars able to communicate electronically.

They're people, just like the rest of the dinosaurs.

He might be a little traumatised about being a brain in a jar, though. Poor brain in a jar.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It's philosophy time, bitches.

I've been thinking about this question lately, about what makes a human "human", and how far we would have to go to make a human no longer be perceived as one.

If we cut of the arms and legs of a person, everybody would still agree it's a human.
If we cut off the torso and kept the head alive, it would still be a human, yes?
What if we extracted the brain and put it in a jar, able to communicate over some sort of brain-computer interface? Would we still think that's a human, and if not, why? Does a brain need a head to be human? That would imply our head, and not the brain, is the core of our humanity, which is a bit silly.

I guess as a quick and easy question to get the thread started is "would you perceive a robot with the brain (and consciousness) of a human to be human, or a robot?"

EDIT: Wrong section. Can a mod move it to OT?

I disagree, I don't think that it's a human when it's just a head and no torso, at that point it's a cyborg.

If you cut off arms and legs and just leave a torso and head it's still a human because the average person can survive having their arms and legs amputated. Others would have to do everything for you at that point, but your body would still be what's keeping you alive, your own organs. Your arms and legs aren't necessary to "living" in the most basic definition.

On the other hand once the torso is removed and the person is just a head then they are no longer human because a human cannot naturally survive in that state, so something that is surviving in that state is no longer strictly human, and anything past that point would also not be human.

 

[Pinkamena]

It's philosophy time, bitches.

I've been thinking about this question lately, about what makes a human "human", and how far we would have to go to make a human no longer be perceived as one.

If we cut of the arms and legs of a person, everybody would still agree it's a human.
If we cut off the torso and kept the head alive, it would still be a human, yes?
What if we extracted the brain and put it in a jar, able to communicate over some sort of brain-computer interface? Would we still think that's a human, and if not, why? Does a brain need a head to be human? That would imply our head, and not the brain, is the core of our humanity, which is a bit silly.

I guess as a quick and easy question to get the thread started is "would you perceive a robot with the brain (and consciousness) of a human to be human, or a robot?"

EDIT: Wrong section. Can a mod move it to OT?

I disagree, I don't think that it's a human when it's just a head and no torso, at that point it's a cyborg.

If you cut off arms and legs and just leave a torso and head it's still a human because the average person can survive having their arms and legs amputated. Others would have to do everything for you at that point, but your body would still be what's keeping you alive, your own organs. Your arms and legs aren't necessary to "living" in the most basic definition.

On the other hand once the torso is removed and the person is just a head then they are no longer human because a human cannot naturally survive in that state, so something that is surviving in that state is no longer strictly human, and anything past that point would also not be human.

So, let me get this right. If a person cannot survive solely on his own machine, he is not human? That's what I'm getting out of your post. What if a person has a heart failure and needs a transplant, would that make him not human until he gets a functioning heart?

 

[OneCatch]

EDIT: Wrong section. Can a mod move it to OT?

Hey, stick it in R&P! We need threads like this on the front page to get rid of all the fucking Gamergate discussions.

On topic, if it's a brain in a jar but wants me to call it human, I would. I mean, you'd still have to be honest about the differences which it has from the rest of humanity, but courtesy would motivate me if nothing else.

That said, if we're talking that level of modification then is that going to make changes to the way in which this brain perceives the world? Because you're getting into transhumanist territory then, and there would come a point at which you'd probably want to demark. Not a clue where to draw that line though - whether at extra sensory apparatus and brain mods to handle it, or extra personality/memory storage, or artificial processing capacity, or somewhere else.

EDIT: some gaming examples:

I'd probably not regard Master Chief as transhuman because he's still basically human - all of the improvements are fairly linear improvements to existing human traits.

The various Bioshock protagonists/splicers? I'd say still mostly human, in spite of the physical changes. Their motivations are basically human, and although they do have fantastic abilities, they're not noticably different to other people in action or intellect.

Prophet from Crysis? By the time of Crysis 3, yes. He's irrevocably linked to the suit, and it's heavily hinted that it's massively altering his actual thought processes and giving him entirely new and original traits and characteristics. He's moved beyond normal human feelings, instincts, and motivations.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It's philosophy time, bitches.

I've been thinking about this question lately, about what makes a human "human", and how far we would have to go to make a human no longer be perceived as one.

If we cut of the arms and legs of a person, everybody would still agree it's a human.
If we cut off the torso and kept the head alive, it would still be a human, yes?
What if we extracted the brain and put it in a jar, able to communicate over some sort of brain-computer interface? Would we still think that's a human, and if not, why? Does a brain need a head to be human? That would imply our head, and not the brain, is the core of our humanity, which is a bit silly.

I guess as a quick and easy question to get the thread started is "would you perceive a robot with the brain (and consciousness) of a human to be human, or a robot?"

EDIT: Wrong section. Can a mod move it to OT?

I disagree, I don't think that it's a human when it's just a head and no torso, at that point it's a cyborg.

If you cut off arms and legs and just leave a torso and head it's still a human because the average person can survive having their arms and legs amputated. Others would have to do everything for you at that point, but your body would still be what's keeping you alive, your own organs. Your arms and legs aren't necessary to "living" in the most basic definition.

On the other hand once the torso is removed and the person is just a head then they are no longer human because a human cannot naturally survive in that state, so something that is surviving in that state is no longer strictly human, and anything past that point would also not be human.

So, let me get this right. If a person cannot survive solely on his own machine, he is not human? That's what I'm getting out of your post. What if a person has a heart failure and needs a transplant, would that make him not human until he gets a functioning heart?

If they get a transplant then they still have a human heart. If they get a mechanical heart installed (which isn't something that currently exists as far as I know) then they would no longer be human.

As far as machines keeping the person alive until then, the machines are there to stimulate the person's heart and assist its natural functions, not supersede them.

 

[Gray-Philosophy]

An armless human is an armless human. A human head is just a human head. A human brain in a jar is a human brain in a jar. No reason to try and make objective sense of subjective terms I reckon.

 

[Pinkamena]

*SNIPPITY*

So, let me get this right. If a person cannot survive solely on his own machine, he is not human? That's what I'm getting out of your post. What if a person has a heart failure and needs a transplant, would that make him not human until he gets a functioning heart?

If they get a transplant then they still have a human heart. If they get a mechanical heart installed (which isn't something that currently exists as far as I know) then they would no longer be human.

As far as machines keeping the person alive until then, the machines are there to stimulate the person's heart and assist its natural functions, not supersede them.

What about people with Diabetes? They cannot survive on their own and must take insulin shots. Is that not superseding the original function of the Pancreas? Not to mention that mechanical pancreases might soon be a thing, as well as pig-to-human heart transplants. You have a really strict idea of what a human is, IMO.

Does DNA you have match up with that of humans?

If so, yes! Science bitches! Seriously, take a bio course, not a philosophy course.

I'm all for science, but sometimes it's nice to mix it up and get a little philosophical. The question I'm asking in this thread is more of a "what is the core of the human condition" thing.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

If you are a miserable pile of secrets, then you are a (hu)man.

If they get a mechanical heart installed (which isn't something that currently exists as far as I know)....

Artificial hearts have existed since 1949 (when one was implanted in a dog and kept it alive for an hour). Nowadays they can be left inside a patient for months on end, and one variant did a good enough job of supporting a girl's existing (damaged) heart that the natural heart eventually healed and could resume normal function.

 

[Pinkamena]

That said, if we're talking that level of modification then is that going to make changes to the way in which this brain perceives the world? Because you're getting into transhumanist territory then, and there would come a point at which you'd probably want to demark. Not a clue where to draw that line though - whether at extra sensory apparatus and brain mods to handle it, or extra personality/memory storage, or artificial processing capacity, or somewhere else.

That's an interesting point. If the consciousness in the brain has no sensory input, would it still identify as human? For a while, I guess. Then I have no idea what would happen.
I mean, when you think of it, I am just a brain. The only contact "I", i.e. my consciousness inside my brain has with the outside world is through my senses. My current sense of self is the result of 23 years of continuous sensory input. If we cut all that off, would my sense of self deteriorate due to lack of new input? My memories of how it was to have a body, walk around, see, smell, hear, etc, would slowly diminish. How the hell would the brain even cope with that?

 

[Godhead]

If we're getting into all that sci-fi mumbo jumbo, then I'd say as long as the person has the brain of the human (not some weird disease where they think they're human but are actually an amorphous blob doesn't cut it), then they would still be a human in my eyes.

 

[Pinkamena]

Ah, alright, i have a theory about that too.

In my opinion, the human condition is simply the result of us moving higher on Maslow's needs pyramid. Most creatures only have the option to survive, that's all they do, sustain their own life. I think a big part of what causes the human condition is the luxury of having large amounts of time where life sustainment is totally fulfilled, and higher intelligence, which allows us to observe and question the world around us as well as grasp the nature of life and our instincts. So, we totally nailed life, we are successful as a species to a ridiculous extent, we understand how and why life works, and we're smart enough to create new goals and aspirations beyond that base level. Having fulfilled our biological purpose, but with so much more to offer, it's a matter of where we decide to dedicate that extra potential, when we really don't have a solid set of inherent biological guidelines we can follow. We mastered survival and reproduction, at this point we have to ask ourselves "now what?". That's where i think a big part of the human condition lies.

That makes a lot of sense. But then again, it implies that any race that fulfills the points you made would be considered human, which most probably would not agree with.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

In discussing philosophy I make a distinction between a person and a human. Humans are people but you don't need to be human in order to be a person. So a True AI or sapient aliens would be people but not humans. Also I'm all for Transhumanism. Personally I think it's your mind that defines you as a person, not your body. To make a comparison the mind is software and the body hardware, the software is impacted by the hardware and needs hardware to exist but ultimately the hardware could be changed, the software is what really matters. You could even argue that somebody who is brain dead is a human but no longer a person.

Human itself would defined as a member of the species human. However you could not be a human and still be a person, you'd still have humanity as it were.

 

[gabeg1]

Having majored in philosophy in college and taken a course in Selfhood and Personal Identity I have quite a few thoughts on this but they're way lengthier than I feel like typing out in a forum. Instead, I suggest you start with Harry Frankfurt's "Freedom of the Will and Concept of a Person." It isn't all that long compared to other philosophical works, is generally considered extremely influential in this area, and is pretty easily googled.

Also, just for fun, you could look up the Buddhist Empty-Self theory which suggests that there is only the illusion of person-hood, i.e. there are no "humans" in the sense that OP is using it, due to agency being an ever-changing combination of the 5 skandas. This one is a bit lengthier and much more difficult to understand without someone to explain though.